Editing Intelligent design (section)

===Reaction to Kitzmiller ruling===
Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that:

{{Blockquote|Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court.

Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.<ref name="kitz137">
{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#H. Conclusion]] pp. 137–138</ref>}}

As Jones had predicted, [[John G. West]], Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture, said:

{{Blockquote|The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated Discovery Institute's position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dover_intelligent_design_decis.html |title=Dover Intelligent Design Decision Criticized as a Futile Attempt to Censor Science Education |last=Crowther |first=Robert |date=December 20, 2005 |website=Evolution News & Views |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2007-09-03}}</ref>}}

Newspapers have noted that the judge is "a [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] and a churchgoer".<ref>{{cite news |last=Raffaele |first=Martha |date=December 20, 2005 |title=Intelligent design policy struck down |url=http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/122105dnnatidesign.780fc9a.html |newspaper=[[Dallas Morning News]] |agency=Associated Press |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930035635/http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/122105dnnatidesign.780fc9a.html |archive-date=September 30, 2007 |access-date=2014-02-28}}
* {{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=December 20, 2005 |title=Judge rules against 'intelligent design' |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna10545387 |work=[[NBCNews.com]] |agency=Associated Press |others=Contributions by [[Alan Boyle]] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |last=Provonsha |first=Matthew |date=September 21, 2006 |title=Godless: The Church of Liberalism |url=http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-21/ |magazine=[[Skeptic (U.S. magazine)|eSkeptic]] |type=Book review |issn=1556-5696 |access-date=2007-09-03}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/discovery-institute-tries-to-swift-boat-judge-jones |title=Discovery Institute tries to "swift-boat" Judge Jones |last1=Padian |first1=Kevin |last2=Matzke |first2=Nick |date=January 4, 2006 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |type=Blog |access-date=2009-11-18}}</ref>

The decision has been examined in a search for flaws and conclusions, partly by intelligent design supporters aiming to avoid future defeats in court. In its Winter issue of 2007, the ''Montana Law Review'' published three articles.<ref>{{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=Winter 2007 |title=Editor's Note: Intelligent Design Articles |url=http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2036&context=mlr |format=PDF |journal=Montana Law Review |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=1–5 |issn=0026-9972 |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-date=2014-03-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140309110106/http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2036&context=mlr |url-status=dead }}</ref>
In the first, David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin, all of the Discovery Institute, argued that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, the Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientific theory, and that the Kitzmiller decision will have no effect at all on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory.<ref name="DeWolf">{{cite journal |last1=DeWolf |first1=David K. |last2=West |first2=John G. |author-link2=John G. West |last3=Luskin |first3=Casey |date=Winter 2007 |title=Intelligent Design Will Survive ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' |url=http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2037&context=mlr |format=PDF |journal=Montana Law Review |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=7–57 |issn=0026-9972 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> In the second [[Peter H. Irons]] responded, arguing that the decision was extremely well reasoned and spells the death knell for the intelligent design efforts to introduce creationism in public schools,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Irons |first=Peter |author-link=Peter H. Irons |date=Winter 2007 |title=Disaster In Dover: The Trials (And Tribulations) Of Intelligent Design |url=http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2038&context=mlr |format=PDF |journal=Montana Law Review |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=59–87 |issn=0026-9972 |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-date=2014-03-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140309105941/http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2038&context=mlr |url-status=dead }}</ref> while in the third, DeWolf, ''et al.'', answer the points made by Irons.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=DeWolf |first1=David K. |last2=West |first2=John G. |last3=Luskin |first3=Casey |date=Winter 2007 |title=Rebuttal to Irons |url=http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2039&context=mlr |format=PDF |journal=Montana Law Review |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=89–94 |issn=0026-9972 |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-date=2014-03-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140309110010/http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2039&context=mlr |url-status=dead }}
* {{cite web |url=http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/06/07/irons-responds-to-west-luskin/#more |title=Irons Responds to West, Luskin and DeWolf |last=Brayton |first=Ed |date=June 7, 2007 |website=Dispatches from the Creation Wars |publisher=[[ScienceBlogs|ScienceBlogs LLC]] |type=Blog |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140301020525/http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/06/07/irons-responds-to-west-luskin/#more |archive-date=2014-03-01 |url-status=dead }}</ref> However, fear of a similar lawsuit has resulted in other school boards abandoning intelligent design "teach the controversy" proposals.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" />